Page 1 of 11 Original Research
Work engagement and meaningful work across
generational cohorts
Authors:
Crystal Hoole1
Jackie Bonnema1
Affiliations:
1
Department of Industrial
Psychology and People
Management, University of
Johannesburg, South Africa
Correspondence to:
Crystal Hoole
Email:
crystal.hoole@gmail.com
Postal address:
PO Box 524, Auckland Park
2006, South Africa
Dates:
Received: 09 Jan. 2015
Accepted: 13 July 2015
Published: 28 Aug. 2015
How to cite this article:
Hoole, C., & Bonnema, J.
(2015). Work engagement
and meaningful work across
generational cohorts. SA
Journal of Human Resource
Management/SA Tydskrif vir
Menslikehulpbronbestuur,
13(1), Art. #681, 11 pages.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/
sajhrm.v13i1.681
Copyright:
© 2015. The Authors.
Licensee: AOSIS
OpenJournals. This work is
licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution
License.
Read online:
Scan this QR
code with your
smart phone or
mobile device
to read online.
Orientation: Engaging employees and providing employees with a sense of meaning at work
is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Although research has shown that differences between
work engagement and meaningful work amongst generational cohorts exist, results are still
inconclusive. With age becoming increasingly more important as a diversity factor, a better
understanding of the dynamics between work engagement and meaningful work across
different generational cohorts is necessary to design the right strategy for each organisation’s
unique parameters.
Research purpose: The aim of this study was to determine whether there is a relationship
between work engagement and meaningful work and whether there are significant variances
between the levels of work engagement and meaningful work between different generational
cohorts.
Motivation for study: Work engagement has consistently been highlighted by researchers
and human resources experts as a recommended solution to provide companies with the
upper hand when it comes to creating a competitive edge. Yet, levels of work engagement
are far from ideal, requiring intensified efforts to identify solutions towards raising overall
engagement levels. In recent years, much of the focus in terms of generating engagement
has been aimed in the direction of financial rewards and other benefits; some organisational
experts are of the opinion that a shift is occurring towards meaningful work instead of
monetary rewards as the driver of engagement. The changing nature of the work landscape
also suggests that generational cohorts experience work engagement and meaningful work
differently. Understanding these complexities is mandatory in creating solutions towards
improving levels of engagement and meaningful work.
Research approach, design and method: A cross-sectional quantitative research approach has
been followed. The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) and Psychological Meaningful
Scale (PMS) were administered to 261 participants across several financial institutions in
Gauteng, including three generational cohorts (Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y).
Main findings: A moderate relationship was found to exist between work engagement and
meaningful work. The Baby Boomer generation experiences the highest levels of engagement
and meaningful work. Significant differences were found between Baby Boomers and
Generation X and Baby Boomers and Generation Y. No significant difference were noted
between Generation X and Generation Y.
Practical/managerial implications: A one-size-fits-all strategy to improve work engagement
and the sense of meaning in work does not exist. Results of this study suggest that various
approaches based on the needs of each cohort may be required in order to sustain engagement.
Older workers in particular prove to be far more valuable and productive and should be
treated with care.
Contribution: Whilst a large amount of information exists in terms of generational cohorts, not
all findings are supported by empirical research to link the concept of work engagement to the
different generational cohorts. The conventional belief that older people are less engaged and
do not find meaning in their work has been proven to be a misconception, which highlights
the danger of stereotypical beliefs. The findings suggest that older employees are still very
valuable resources and can contribute significantly to the organisation’s success, but have
different needs and values than other age groups. Customised engagement strategies tailored
towards different generational cohorts might be more beneficial.
Introduction
Work engagement has been hailed by researchers and human resources experts as a solution
to improve the overall functioning of organisations and individuals within organisations.
Many studies have pointed out that work engagement has become an important predictor
http://www.sajhrm.org.za doi:10.4102/sajhrm.v13i1.681
 Page 2 of 11
in determining organisational outcomes and has been
associated with business success (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008;
Bakker et al., 2007; Gallup Consulting, 2008; Schaufeli, 2013).
An engaged workforce may potentially enhance the
competitive edge required in the current economic landscape.
Whilst high levels of engagement add value, low levels can
have a detrimental effect on the bottom line of organisations.
According to global reports, disengaged employee-related
productivity losses translate into billions of dollars per year
(Bates, 2004; Gallup Consulting, 2008). It seems that a gap exists
between ideal engagement levels and the realisation thereof.
According to research, almost 71% of organisations include
engagement components in their performance measurement
tools, but only 35% consider themselves successful in terms of
positive engagement outcomes (Evenson, 2014).
There are various factors that contribute to employees’
experience of engagement in the workplace. According
to Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin and Schwartz (1997),
individuals spend more than a third of their lives engaged
in their jobs. Individuals will pursue different work roles
throughout their careers which will allow them to better
define and discover themselves.
Furthermore, over the last two decades it has also been noted
that there has been a shift in psychology towards a more
positive approach focusing on people’s strengths (Rothmann,
2003; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Research has
highlighted that engaged employees are more hands-on,
dedicated to maintaining a quality performance standard,
take responsibility for their own growth and are now more
involved in their jobs than ever, utilising every single skill
and capability they possess to fulfil the myriad of roles in
business (Rothmann & Rothmann, 2010; Schaufeli, 2013).
One important point that needs to be made is how work
engagement is defined. Construct contamination, confusion
and redundancy in the field of engagement has been a problem
for at least the last three decades since Morrow (1983) called
for a moratorium on the further development of work-related
constructs. Since then very little has changed, resulting in the
erroneous use of interchangeable constructs such as work
engagement, employee engagement, employee involvement,
commitment, passion, organisational commitment, to name
a few (Havenga, Stanz, Visagie & Wait, 2011; Macey &
Schneider, 2008; Morrow, 1983; Roodt, 2004; Schaufeli, 2013).
Although it is not in the ambit of this article to go into the
detail of the history of the construct development of work
engagement and related constructs, it suffices to say that
although ample evidence exists that work engagement is
conceptually a unique and independent construct (Bakker &
Demerouti, 2008; Schaufeli, 2013; Sonnentag, 2011), the debate
is still ongoing. It is therefore imperative for every study to
clearly define how it conceptualises and operationalises its
definition of engagement.
For the purpose of this study we therefore define work
engagement as ‘a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind
http://www.sajhrm.org.za
Original Research
that is characterized by vigour, dedication, and absorption’
(Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá & Bakker, 2002, p. 74).
Work engagement could therefore be understood as the
underlying energy of the organisation which might be utilised
towards organisational success and personal benefits for
the individual (Pech & Slade, 2006). Despite the recognised
advantages of high work engagement and meaningful work
levels within the workplace, statistics still indicate that actual
levels and outcomes are far from ideal.
As work engagement contributes towards overall
organisational success, attention needs to be paid to work
dimensions that might be related to engagement levels. In
recent years, companies have relied on financial rewards
and other benefits to elevate engagement levels (Scott &
McMullen, 2010). New arguments are however surfacing
to support the notion that meaningful work (rather than
monetary rewards) could be employed as the driver of
engagement (Wells-Lepley, 2013). Erickson (2011, p. 1)
proposes that ‘meaning is the new money’, indicating that
meaningful work instead of higher pay could facilitate more
effort from employees. But do we all experience meaning
in the same way, and if we do not what does it mean for
organisations? Researchers have long argued whether
differences exist amongst generational cohorts in terms of
what motivates them and drives them to perform optimally
(Deal, Altman & Rogelberg, 2010; Drake, 2012; Kapoor &
Solomon, 2011; Miller, 2008). Recent years have seen trends
in older workers working past their normal retirement age
(Boone-James, Mckechnie & Swanberg, 2011; Miller & Nyce,
2014). Considering stereotypical beliefs that older workers
are less engaged than younger workers, issues become more
serious. If older workers are going to be in the workforce
for a number of additional years, organisations would want
them to be as optimal and engaged as possible. If differences
between generational cohorts exist, engagement strategies
need to be adjusted and customised accordingly.
Literature review
Relationship between work engagement
and meaningful work
Work engagement is defined by Schaufeli and Bakker (2003)
as an energetic connection that exists between employees
and their jobs. As a result, engaged employees are more
effective and equipped to cope with demanding situations
in the workplace. Whilst some schools of thought position
engagement as the opposite of burnout (Maslach & Leiter,
1997), the work of Schaufeli and Bakker views engagement
as an independent construct, which presents as an enduring
state of mind (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Engaged employees
demonstrate vigour, dedication and absorption when
executing tasks in the workplace (Schaufeli et al., 2002).
Schaufeli, Taris and Van Rhenen (2008) propose that
engagement contains an element of balance and resilience, as
engaged employees tend to feel tired when they work hard,
but not in a way that was associated with burnout. Engaged
doi:10.4102/sajhrm.v13i1.681
 Page 3 of 11
employees do not develop into workaholics; instead they
merely work hard as result of a high internal drive.
Work engagement should not be confused with other
constructs, even though some similarities are found when
commitment, job satisfaction and involvement are discussed
(Maslach, Schaufeli & Leiter, 2001; Schaufeli, 2013). Work
engagement may go far beyond commitment, as it identifies
engaged employees as people who are not merely committed
or passionate, but people who are fully aligned with the
goals of the organisation and who make a distinct effort
to contribute (BlessingWhite, 2012). Maslach et al. (2001)
are of the opinion that engagement clearly differs from job
satisfaction and involvement in terms of personal fulfilment
and energy. According to these researchers, fulfilment and
energy could be associated with engagement, but could
not be observed clearly in the other two constructs. It
can therefore be deduced that the concepts (engagement,
commitment, satisfaction and involvement) are related, but
that engagement contains a deeper dimension of well-being,
emotional and behavioural responses, such as experiencing
joy and fulfilment at work (Crabtree, 2005; Hallberg &
Schaufeli, 2006; Schaufeli et al., 2002).
Meaningful work originated as a concept from the
philosophical principles associated with the meaning of
life, as a feeling of purpose in one’s overall existence which
creates a sense of harmony and completeness (Overell, 2008).
Frankl (1984) indicates that the search for meaning is one
of the most important motivators during the lifespan of a
human being. Meaningful work can then imply that a person
would also find a sense of harmony and completeness in
their occupational environment.
Kant defines work that provides autonomy, a sufficient
income and the opportunity to develop on a moral level
as meaningful work (Bowie, 1998). Meaningful work has
also been linked to Maslow’s (1943) need hierarchy. The
hierarchy places self-actualisation at the top of the pyramid,
with the underlying principle that when a certain need is
fulfilled, another takes its place. A person therefore always
strives to become fully realised (Maslow, 1943). According to
Overell (2008), this translates into self-actualisation in work
and happens when a person assimilates work completely
into identity. Kahn (1990) describes meaningfulness at
work as the experience that effort is justified and rewarded
accordingly.
Various researchers have linked meaningful work to the
values and needs of the individual and identify different
dimensions of the construct. Chalofsky and Krishna (2009,
p. 195) view meaningful work as a state of ‘integrated
wholeness’, where a ‘sense of self’, ‘the work itself’ and ‘sense
of balance’ play a role. Lips-Wiersema and Wright (2012,
p. 655) identify four dimensions of meaningful work which
relate closely to the needs of the individual and the needs of
others. These dimensions can be identified as ‘developing the
self’, ‘unity with others’, ‘service to others’ and ‘expressing
full potential’. May, Gilson and Harter (2004) state that the
http://www.sajhrm.org.za
Original Research
value that a person finds in work is aligned to aspirations and
priorities. Meaningful work could also contribute towards a
person’s sense of security and dignity (Ayers, Miller-Dyce
& Carlone, 2008). Fairlie (2011) identifies meaningful work
as the presence of qualities in the workplace or the work
itself that is aligned to a person’s definition of meaning.
Empowerment research in the workplace indicates that
successful and committed employees experience feelings of
meaningfulness during the execution of tasks (Thomas &
Velthouse, 1990; Tymon, 1988).
On a theoretical level, several researchers have argued that
relationships between work engagement and meaningful
work exist on multiple levels. For instance, the affective
component of engagement presents a link with the search for
meaning and purpose. Csikszentmihalyi (1975) wrote about
the holistic sensation that people experience a feeling of
total involvement: the idea of holism is related to fulfilment,
whilst the idea of involvement may refer to a high level of
engagement. Holbeche and Springett (2003) argued that
people strive towards finding meaning in life and work,
and once they are able to find fulfilment from a professional
perspective, they tend to experience increased engagement.
Other researchers argue that the experience of meaningful
work could be viewed as a moderator to engagement
(Anitha, 2014; Dullien, 2012; Macey & Schneider, 2008;
Wells-Lepley, 2013). Hirschi (2012) supports the notion
that meaningful work can foster an environment where
engagement levels would be higher. Kular, Gatenby, Rees,
Soane and Truss (2008) infer that meaningfulness contributes
to a positive attitude towards work and can lead to higher
engagement levels. Other field experts, such as Koloc (2013),
are of the opinion that meaningful work can lure and retain
talent. Meaningfulness, safety, and availability contribute to
engagement levels according to May et al. (2004). Employees
who are able to find alignment between the meaning they
derive from their work and their personal views of meaning
will tend to be more engaged and more fulfilled (King &
Napa, 1998; Schaufeli et al., 2002).
Not only is meaningfulness one of the conditions for
engagement (Kahn, 1990) but it is also one of the largest
single predictors of engagement (Fairlie, 2011).
Generational cohorts
A generational cohort can be described as a group of
individuals who share certain life stages and experiences
during the same historical time frame (Kowske, Rasch &
Wiley, 2010). Members of a cohort will therefore be born,
attend educational institutions, start work, engage in
marriage and retire from the workforce during roughly the
same period of time. Whilst living within these time frames,
members of a generational cohort are exposed to historical
happenings and certain phenomena on cultural and social
terrains; these experiences influence their thinking and
attitudes, and this in turn can impact on their behaviour
(Schewe & Noble, 2000). The generational cohorts that are
doi:10.4102/sajhrm.v13i1.681
 Page 4 of 11
predominantly represented in the current workforce are the
Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y.
Baby Boomers can be defined as individuals born between
1946 and 1964, Generation X represents those born between
1965 and 1980 and Generation Y (also known as Millennials)
represents those born between 1981 and 1999 (Meriac, Woehr &
Banister, 2010).
Each cohort displays certain characteristics and contributes
in their own way to the workplace.
Baby Boomers
Baby Boomers grew up in a time of economic growth and
also experienced political and ideological turmoil during the
1960s (Hornbostel, Kumar & Smith, 2011). The employees in
this cohort are currently nearing retirement (Parry & Urwin,
2009). According to Hornbostel et al. (2011), Baby Boomers
are ambitious, highly competitive and work-driven. They
place value on being committed to an organisation and will
most likely remain at the same place of work for their entire
life (Drewery, Riley & Staff, 2008).
Generation X
Generation X’s members are the children of Baby Boomers,
who grew up in an era of significant technological
innovation (Wong, Gardiner, Lang & Coulon, 2008). They
are most likely to have experienced minimal supervision
whilst their parents were working and are characterised
as independent (Hornbostel et al., 2011). Generation X
members have been active in the workplace for the past
30 years and make up a large portion of employment
statistics. According to Hornbostel et al. (2011), Generation
X members carry some of the beliefs of their parents,
such as the drive for money, challenge and progressing
within their careers, but they also place an emphasis on
work-life balance and a more informal work environment.
Generation X members are believed to be more flexible
than Baby Boomers (White, 2011).
Generation Y
Generation Y grew up in the age of social media and
cyberspace, and has significant advantage over Baby
Boomers in terms of being technologically savvy (Deal et
al., 2010). Generation Y members are currently entering
the world of work; some might have been part of the
workforce for the past few years (Parry & Urwin, 2009).
Generation Y members are team players with a strong
need to be included in groups. They want to feel valued
and recognised within the workplace, grow and learn. If an
environment does not provide these types of work values,
they will not hesitate to leave the organisation. Generation
Y members are inclined to multitask more and to provide
their services for the greater good (White, 2011). Wong et al.
(2008) hypothesise that Generation Y is bombarded with
negative media reports and has been exposed to the
failures of previous generations at a much higher level than
previous generations.
http://www.sajhrm.org.za
Original Research
Generational cohorts, work engagement and
meaningful work
In terms of meaningful work, previous findings suggest that
employees’ values influence their experience of meaningful
work, which, in turn, could have an impact on work
engagement levels. But is there a significant difference in the
work values and experience of meaningful work between the
cohorts? Researchers are not in agreement on the issue. Some
believe that variances exist and that employers should build
engagement and meaningful work strategies to accommodate
the unique generational needs (Drake, 2012; Kunreuther,
2003). According to Kapoor and Solomon (2011), each cohort
brings its own contribution to the workplace. Overell (2008)
proposes that the life stage of a person has a significant impact
on what they want from work in order to find it meaningful.
Research suggests that variances might exist amongst
cohorts in terms of the conceptualisation of meaningful
work during different life stages (Glass, 2007; Miller, 2008).
As a result, varying approaches based on the needs of each
cohort may be required in order to sustain engagement
(AON Hewitt, 2013; Dwyer, 2009; Pitt-Catsouphes & Matz-
Costa, 2009; Robinson, Perryman & Hayday, 2004). Miller
(2008) argues that meaning in work is altered as a person
gains more experience. Global studies produce conflicting
results relating to the generational cohorts and engagement.
In regions such as Asia Pacific, Europe, Latin America and
North America, Baby Boomers seem to be more engaged
than their younger counterparts (AON Hewitt, 2013). In sub-
Saharan Africa, Generation Y presents higher engagement
levels than the other two cohorts (Emergent Growth, 2013;
Maurer, 2013). In Australia, Baby Boomers and Millennials
are identified as the most engaged (Australian Public Service
Commission, 2012), in South Africa, Kenexa’s (2012) findings
identify Generation Y members as displaying the highest
level of engagement, whilst Coetzee and De Villiers (2010)
indicate that older generations experience higher levels of
engagement than Generation Y. These findings indicate
the possibility of cultural and regional influences on the
development of engagement cultures.
Boone-James et al. (2011) indicate that age groups should
be a consideration when studying engagement, a term they
very broadly defined as ‘the employee’s perception of his/
her value to the organization, the employee’s loyalty and
commitment to the organization, and his/her willingness to
contribute to the good of the organization’ (p. 11), as they
view age as a new factor of diversity, whilst conceding that
certain stereotypes may exist. Others feel that no significant
differences exist and that minimal effort should be directed
towards separate engagement approaches (Deal et al., 2010;
Mlodzik & De Meuse, 2010).
More specific findings have been proposed by various
researchers in terms of the perceived differences in work
values amongst generations. Kompier (2005) argues that
younger workers (Generation Y) tend to question the
nature of meaningful work at a higher level than their older
colleagues. Schaufeli et al. (2002), as well as Coetzee and De
doi:10.4102/sajhrm.v13i1.681
 Page 5 of 11
Villiers (2010), argue that older workers tend to be more
engaged. Wong et al. (2008) conclude that Generation X and
Generation Y tend to be more ambitious but less optimistic
than their counterparts in the Baby Boomer generation.
Generation X and Generation Y are also motivated by greater
workplace challenges than the older generation. D’Amato
and Herzfeldt (2008) indicate that the younger generations
(Generation X and Generation Y) will be more likely to
remain connected to their organisation if the opportunity
for learning exists, whereas older workers are less focused
on learning and more on the development of leadership
and commitment. Generation X and Generation Y prefer a
collaborative workplace, tend to be more tolerant of diversity
and are more inclined to belong to groups than Baby Boomers
(Wong et al., 2008). This might be due to the fact that Baby
Boomers are approaching the end of their careers and, as
a result, are severing their ties with other people who will
remain in the workforce. Generation Y members, on the other
hand, are just starting to enter the workforce and therefore
need to affiliate themselves to become integrated members of
the organisation (Wong et al., 2008).
Should variances exist, organisations can tailor their
engagement strategies towards this diversity in order to be
successful. Kapoor and Solomon (2011) propagate that a level
of understanding needs to be created between the members
of different generations who share the same workspace. By
fostering a generational-friendly environment, organisations
are also investing in the development of future leaders
(Kunreuther, 2003).
Problem statement and research
questions
The focus of many organisations is shifting towards
customising their engagement strategies. Well-informed
strategies need to be supported by good research. Work
engagement should not be underestimated when it comes to
creating a productive and efficient workplace. Several studies
have focused on the importance of high levels of engagement
in order to facilitate other outcomes, such as low absenteeism,
high organisational commitment and employee wellness.
Meaningful work is closely related to work engagement, and
it is postulated that employees who experience meaningful
work may display higher levels of work engagement (Dik &
Duffy, 2007).
This study will therefore attempt to shed light on the
interaction of these variables by testing whether there are
significant differences between the levels of engagement
and the experience of meaningful work amongst different
generational cohorts and what the relationship is between
them. The research will therefore attempt to answer the
following questions:
• Question 1: Is there a positive relationship between work
engagement and meaningful work?
• Question 2: Are there significant differences between the
generational cohorts in terms of meaningful work?
http://www.sajhrm.org.za
Original Research
• Question 3: Are there significant differences between the
generational cohorts in terms of work engagement?
Research method
Sampling procedures
Participants were selected by using non-probability stratified
sampling from organisations within Gauteng, South Africa,
to ensure a sufficient number of respondents for each
generational cohort.
As work engagement levels were to be measured, individuals
who had been working for one year or longer within the
organisation needed to be included to allow for reasonable
levels of engagement and meaningfulness.
The questionnaire consisted of three parts, including
biographic information, the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
(UWES) developed by Schaufeli and Bakker (2003) and the
Psychological Meaningfulness Scale (PMS) developed by
Tymon (1988).
A total of 320 questionnaires were distributed, out of which
283 were returned (88% response rate). After data vetting
processes, 261 surveys (82%) were identified as viable for
the purposes of the analysis. Twenty-two cases (7%) were
excluded due to incomplete data, or work experience of less
than one year.
Whilst questions relating to all three dimensions in the UWES
were included, it is assumed that all items relate to engagement,
which allowed unidimensional use of the instrument, an
approach endorsed by several other authors (De Bruin, Hill,
Henn & Muller, 2013; Rothmann, Jorgensen & Hill, 2011).
Ethical considerations
In any research project, ethical dimensions need to be
considered. All participants in this study were included on
the basis that they were fully briefed on the purpose of the
project. Participation was voluntary and individuals had
the opportunity to withdraw at any time. Furthermore, no
participant’s name was included in the study: responses were
only labelled in terms of a numbering system. Organisations
were also not explicitly mentioned, as the data were handled in
a consolidated manner. In terms of data coding, each company
was assigned an alpha character to ensure full anonymity.
Results
Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics were calculated in order to provide
more information about the sample and to determine
whether assumption-related violations existed (see Table 1).
In terms of the generational cohorts, participants belonged
to one of three groups, depending on their year of birth.
Participants born between the years 1946 and 1964 were
grouped into the cohort labelled Baby Boomers, participants
doi:10.4102/sajhrm.v13i1.681
 Page 6 of 11 Original Research

TABLE 1: Demographic characteristics of participants. Reliability

Item Characteristic Frequency Percentage
Gender Male 128 49
The commonly-used indicator for reliability is the Cronbach’s
Female 133 51 alpha coefficient, which is considered acceptable when above
Ethnicity Black 60 23 0.70 and preferably above 0.80 (Field, 2009; Pallant, 2005;
Mixed race 15 5.7 Tabachnick & Fidell, 2006).
Indian/Asian 14 5.4
White 170 65.1 Cronbach’s alpha scores of 0.93 and 0.72 were obtained for
Missing/Invalid 1 0.8 the UWES and PMS respectively. In the case of the PMS one
Marital status Married (Civil) 128 49.6 should take into consideration that reliability also tends
Married (Traditional) 18 7
to be lower when a scale consists of fewer than 10 items
Polygamous marriage 1 0.4
(Pallant, 2005).
Living with partner 15 5.8
Never married 62 24
Widow/Widower 8 3.1 Correlation
Separated 2 0.8
Divorced 24 9.3
In order to examine the relationship between work
Employment status Permanent 220 84.3 engagement and meaningful work, Pearson’s correlation
Temporary 7 2.7 coefficient was calculated. A moderate, positive correlation
Contract 33 12.6 of 0.43 and statistical significance at the 0.01 level were
Missing 1 0.4 achieved, indicating that higher levels of engagement can be
Organisational Administrative 64 24.9 associated with higher levels of meaningful work.
hierarchy
Craft/Trade 2 0.8
Support services 2 0.8
Management 47 18.3 Multivariate analysis of variance
Technical 14 5.4 In order to understand how generational membership
Legal 7 2.7
affects engagement and meaningfulness, a multivariate
Marketing and sales 10 3.9
analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted. MANOVA,
Human resources 6 2.3
as opposed to multiple analysis of variance (ANOVAs)
Financial 33 12.8
Information technology 34 13.2
was chosen to avoid Type I errors and to show potential
Purchasing/Tenders 4 1.6 interaction effects.
Inventory 1 0.4
Quality assurance 10 3.9 To determine whether the assumption of homogeneity of
Customer services 12 4.7 variance-covariance matrices are adhered to, the Box Test was
Other 11 4.3 included in the analysis. According to the results (Significant
value 0.782), it can be assumed that the homogeneity
TABLE 2: Generational cohorts. assumption has not been violated, as it presents larger than
Year of birth Generational cohort Frequency Percentage 0.001 (Pallant, 2005).
1946–1964 Baby Boomers 64 24.52
1965–1980 Generation X 93 35.63 According to the Levene test, a significance value of less
1981–1999 Generation Y 104 39.85
than 0.05 indicates violation of the assumptions of equality
N = 261.
of variance. The Levene scores for work engagement and
psychological meaningfulness respectively were 0.649 and
TABLE 3: Skewness and kurtosis.
0.714, indicating no related issues.
Variable Skewness Kurtosis
Engagement -0.31 -0.48
Meaningful work -0.4 -0.56 The results of the multivariate tests (Table 4) indicated that
Age -0.26 -1.4 significant differences were present between the groups in
terms of the dependant variables. For smaller sample sizes
or groups with unequal sizes, the Pillai’s trace is often the
born between 1965 and 1980 were allocated to the Generation
preferable measure and offers the best protection against
X cohort and participants born between 1981 and 1999
Type I errors (Field, 2009). It can be assumed that a difference
were classified as Generation Y. The mean age for Baby
exists between the cohorts in terms of the relationship
Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y were 57, 42 and 28
respectively and can be seen in Table 2. between engagement and meaningfulness.

Significance in terms of each of the variables were further

Normality of distribution
The data was scrutinised for any violations in terms of
outliers, skewness and kurtosis levels. Although some level
of skewness existed (Table 3), scores were acceptable for the
size of the sample (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2006).
investigated (test of between-subjects effects, Table 5).
The Baby Boomer cohort obtained the highest level of
engagement (79.85), Generation X scored the second highest
(74.13) and the Generation Y cohort scored the lowest (70.71).

http://www.sajhrm.org.za doi:10.4102/sajhrm.v13i1.681
 Page 7 of 11
TABLE 4: Multivariate analysis.
Multivariate measure Value F Hypothesis df
Pillai’s trace 0.104 6.278
Wilks’s lambda 0.897 6.420
Hotelling’s trace 0.115 6.560
Roy’s largest root 0.113 13.047
TABLE 5: Estimated marginal means.
Variable Cohort
Engagement Baby Boomers
Generation X
Generation Y
Meaningfulness Baby Boomers
Generation X
Generation Y
When the meaningfulness levels are studied, the same
pattern emerges. The Baby Boomers have the highest level of
meaningfulness (15.35), Generation X members present with
the second highest level (14.78) and Generation Y members
have the lowest levels of the three cohorts (14.07).
Differences in themselves might not always have statistical
significance. In order to determine whether there are
significant differences between the groups, post hoc tests
were executed (Table 6).
The multivariate tests, the Pillai’s trace and Wilks’s lambda
values of 0.000 for both indicate that the differences were
significant. In terms of engagement, there are significant
differences between the Baby Boomer generation and the
other two cohorts, whilst no significant difference is present
between Generation X and Generation Y.
When meaningfulness is considered, a significant difference
is present between Baby Boomers and Generation Y, but
no significant variances are found between the Generation
X and Generation Y members, or between members of the
Baby Boomer and Generation X cohorts. To understand the
differences between the groups in more practical terms and
to determine the effect size of the differences, Cohen’s d was
calculated for each cohort for engagement and meaningful
work respectively. The results can be seen in Table 7.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship
between work engagement and meaningful work and to
compare levels of engagement and meaningfulness across
different generational cohorts in the workplace.
Based on the results of the study, the findings in terms of
each research question are discussed further.
Question 1
Is there a positive relationship between meaningful work
and engagement?
As discussed, many authors support the idea that a relation­
ship exists between meaningful work and engagement
http://www.sajhrm.org.za
Original Research
Error df Significance Partial eta squared
4 460 0 0.052
4 458 0 0.053
4 456 0 0.054
2 230 0 0.102
(Anitha, 2014; Dullien, 2012; Fairlie, 2011; Kahn, 1990; Macey
Mean & Schneider, 2008; Wells-Lepley, 2013). According to the
79.85 results of this study, a moderate positive relationship exists
74.13 between the two variables. This implies that higher levels
70.71 of meaningful work could imply higher engagement levels,
15.35
which could prompt organisations to pay more attention to
14.78
the content of work and other factors such as person-job fit,
14.07
again taking into consideration factors such as age, career
stages and second careers.
Question 2
Are there significant differences between the generational
cohorts in terms of meaningful work?
One of the main gaps identified by previous research
is inconclusive evidence on whether there are any real
differences in the experience of meaningful work between
the generational cohorts (Boone-James et al., 2011; Drake,
2012; Kapoor & Solomon, 2011; Kunreuther, 2003; Overell,
2008).
In terms of meaningful work, this study presented only
a significant difference between Baby Boomers and
Generation Y. If one takes the theory into account that
each cohort will conceptualise meaning in work differently
according to the life stage that they are in and that meaning
will change as more experience is gained (Boone-James
et al., 2011; Glass, 2007; Miller, 2008), the results can
partially be accounted for as the differences between
Generation X and Baby Boomers are a lot less pronounced.
Perhaps the segmentation of generational cohorts should
also be scrutinised in finer detail to improve the richness
of the data.
Question 3
Are there significant differences between the generational
cohorts in terms of engagement?
As with the case of meaningful work, global studies deliver
conflicting results when it comes to the engagements
levels of generational cohorts in the workplace. The
results of this study indicated a significant difference
between the Baby Boomer generation and the other two
cohorts, but no significant difference between Generation
X and Generation Y. Baby Boomers are the most engaged,
supporting results found by Coetzee and De Villiers
(2010). This also supports other international studies who
indicated similar trends (AON Hewitt, 2013; Australian
Public Service Commission, 2012).
The differences in engagement levels between the cohorts
could be attributed to various factors. If Baby Boomers
are highly ambitious, competitive, dedicated and driven
doi:10.4102/sajhrm.v13i1.681
 Page 8 of 11 Original Research

TABLE 6: Post hoc tests.

Variable Multivariate (I) Cohort (J) Cohort Mean difference Standard error Significance 95% confidence interval
measure
Lower bound Upper bound
Engagement Tukey HSD Baby Boomers Generation X 5.7123* 2.06293 0.017 0.8459 10.5787
Generation Y 9.1383* 2.02100 0.000 4.3708 13.9058
Generation X Baby Boomers -5.7123* 2.06293 0.017 -10.5787 -0.8459
Generation Y 3.426 1.82479 0.148 -0.8787 7.7307
Generation Y Baby Boomers -9.1383* 2.02100 0.000 -13.9058 -4.3708
Generation X -3.426 1.82479 0.148 -7.7307 0.8787
Scheffe Baby Boomers Generation X 5.7123* 2.06293 0.023 0.6297 10.7949
Generation Y 9.1383* 2.02100 0.000 4.1590 14.1176
Generation X Baby Boomers -5.7123* 2.06293 0.023 -10.7949 -0.6297
Generation Y 3.426 1.82479 0.174 -1.0699 7.9219
Generation Y Baby Boomers -9.1383* 2.02100 0.000 -14.1176 -4.1590
Generation X -3.426 1.82479 0.174 -7.9219 1.0699
LSD Baby Boomers Generation X 5.7123* 2.06293 0.006 1.6476 9.7770
Generation Y 9.1383* 2.02100 0.000 5.1563 13.1203
Generation X Baby Boomers -5.7123* 2.06293 0.006 -9.7770 -1.6476
Generation Y 3.426 1.82479 0.062 -0.1694 7.0215
Generation Y Baby Boomers -9.1383* 2.02100 0.000 -13.1203 -5.1563
Generation X -3.426 1.82479 0.062 -7.0215 0.1694
Bonferroni Baby Boomers Generation X 5.7123* 2.06293 0.018 0.7373 10.6873
Generation Y 9.1383* 2.02100 0.000 4.2644 14.0122
Generation X Baby Boomers -5.7123* 2.06293 0.018 -10.6873 -0.7373
Generation Y 3.426 1.82479 0.185 -0.9747 7.8267
Generation Y Baby Boomers -9.1383* 2.02100 0.000 -14.0122 -4.2644
Generation X -3.426 1.82479 0.185 -7.8267 0.9747
Meaningfulness Tukey HSD Baby Boomers Generation X 0.5617 .43425 0.400 -0.4627 1.5861
Generation Y 1.2796* .42543 0.008 0.2760 2.2832
Generation X Baby Boomers -0.5617 .43425 0.400 -1.5861 0.4627
Generation Y 0.7179 .38412 0.150 -0.1882 1.6241
Generation Y Baby Boomers -1.2796* .42543 0.008 -2.2832 -0.2760
Generation X -0.7179 .38412 0.150 -1.6241 0.1882
Scheffe Baby Boomers Generation X 0.5617 .43425 0.435 -0.5082 1.6316
Generation Y 1.2796* .42543 0.012 0.2315 2.3278
Generation X Baby Boomers -0.5617 .43425 0.435 -1.6316 0.5082
Generation Y 0.7179 .38412 0.177 -0.2285 1.6643
Generation Y Baby Boomers -1.2796* .42543 0.012 -2.3278 -0.2315
Generation X -0.7179 .38412 0.177 -1.6643 0.2285
LSD Baby Boomers Generation X 0.5617 .43425 0.197 -0.2939 1.4173
Generation Y 1.2796* .42543 0.003 0.4414 2.1178
Generation X Baby Boomers -0.5617 .43425 0.197 -1.4173 0.2939
Generation Y 0.7179 .38412 0.063 -0.0389 1.4748
Generation Y Baby Boomers -1.2796* .42543 0.003 -2.1178 -0.4414
Generation X -0.7179 .38412 0.063 -1.4748 0.0389
Bonferroni Baby Boomers Generation X 0.5617 .43425 0.591 -0.4856 1.6089
Generation Y 1.2796* .42543 0.009 0.2536 2.3056
Generation X Baby Boomers -0.5617 .43425 0.591 -1.6089 0.4856
Generation Y 0.7179 .38412 0.189 -0.2084 1.6443
Generation Y Baby Boomers -1.2796* .42543 0.009 -2.3056 -0.2536
Generation X -0.7179 .38412 0.189 -1.6443 0.2084
Note: Based on observed means. The error term is mean square (error) = 6.438.
*, The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

(Drewery, Riley & Staff, 2008; Hornbostel et al., 2011; White,
2011), it can be inferred that they might be more engaged
in their work in order to reach their goals. The differences
can be attributed to the different generational experiences
that impact on behaviour (Glass, 2007). One can also not
completely rule out other that factors such as personality
factors and temperament that may have contributed to
some of the observed differences (Langelaan, Bakker, Van
Doornen & Schaufeli, 2006), although the focus of the study
was not on individual differences but on differences between
generational cohorts.
Implications for organisations
The changing generational landscape can be taken into
consideration when the engagement levels of the cohorts
are interpreted from this study, as it provides an additional
contextual background. As employees within the workforce
mature, the distribution of the generational cohorts is

http://www.sajhrm.org.za doi:10.4102/sajhrm.v13i1.681
 Page 9 of 11
TABLE 7: Effect size (Cohen’s d) for differences between groups for engagement
and meaningful work.
Variable Cohen’s d Cohort
Work Engagement 0.50 Baby Boomers
Gen X
0.64 Baby Boomers
Gen Y
0.14 Gen X
Gen Y
Meaningful work 0.46 Baby Boomers
Gen X
0.56 Baby Boomers
Gen Y
0.01 Gen X
Gen Y
changing. According to Mlodzik and De Meuse (2010), the
estimated generational stratification for 2010 and beyond in
the USA is as follows: 5% Matures (the generation preceding
the Baby Boomers), 38% Baby Boomers, 32% Generation X
and 25% Generation Y. Future predictions indicate that by
2020, Generation Y will be the predominant cohort (42% of
the workforce), whilst Generation X will remain relatively
stable at 30%. The Mature cohort will be reduced to 1% of
the workforce, whilst Baby Boomers will represent 22% and
a new cohort will be introduced in the form of Generation Z
(Mlodzik & De Meuse, 2010).
In today’s workplace, members from the older cohorts are not
necessarily leaving the workforce once they reach retirement
age. In the current financial climate, people continue to work
well beyond retirement age to enable a more comfortable
lifestyle. For this reason, it is important to facilitate higher
engagement levels amongst older employees (Hornbostel
et al., 2011). Benchmark surveys have indicated that 60% of
South African pensioners appear to be in financial crisis and
31% continued some form of employment after their official
retirement date to supplement their income (Sanlam, 2013).
The results of the study indicate that Baby Boomers are the
most engaged, and this finding has various implications.
Firstly, it could be projected that organisations within South
Africa might risk losing the most engaged cohort in the near
future. This also has another implication, which is that the
larger part of the workforce might not be optimally engaged.
According to studies, the impact of less engaged employees
could translate into large financial losses (Bates, 2004; Gallup
Consulting, 2008). Organisations should therefore attempt
to understand how engagement levels could affect their
organisational success and act accordingly.
Limitations
Some limitations should be noted. Common method bias
may have influenced the results as respondents were asked
to respond to more than one construct in the same survey
at the same time. With smaller sample sizes, any significant
differences between groups should be treated with caution.
The Baby Boomers cohort was a much smaller group than the
other two cohorts which could have influenced the results.
http://www.sajhrm.org.za
Original Research
This also poses a problem in terms of generalisability of the
results.
Perhaps one of the downfalls of using well- established
instruments is that one sometimes assumes that they remain
relevant over time. Significant differences between Baby
Boomers and Generation Y could, besides others factors,
also be attributed to test item bias, simply having a different
understanding or interpretation of the constructs being
measured. Differential item functioning (Karami, 2012) is
recommended to address this shortcoming. Another possible
cause that could have been overlooked in explaining at least
some of the differences is the use of composite scores in
analysing mean differences between groups (Steinmetz, 2013).
According to Steinmetz (2013), researchers in social sciences
often assume that partial invariance of the measurement
instrument is sufficient, which might not be the case when
working with composite scores. Results should therefore be
treated with care.
Recommendations
Within the diverse and changing landscape in the workplace,
the focus of many organisations needs to start shifting
towards the needs and values of different generational
cohorts. The fact that Baby Boomers outperformed
Generation X and Generation Y in terms of both work
engagement and meaningful work indicates that they have a
lot more to offer than what stereotypically has been believed.
Whilst this study provides relevant information in terms
of the engagement and meaningful work levels between
the cohorts, more in-depth research is required to enable
organisations to customise better engagement strategies.
It would for instance be interesting to investigate the
engagement levels over time, to determine whether these
vary for the same participants across a specific time period.
Furthermore, it is recommended that more is done to
understand how different generations approach meaningful
work and whether the same definitions are present across
different cohorts. This could aid organisations to tailor
their selection, development and reward policies to suit
individuals from different age groups.
Attention could be paid to the interaction between the
different generations in the workforce to determine whether
the groups experiencing higher levels of engagement and
meaningfulness could ultimately play a role in elevating
these levels amongst the other groups. It is further suggested
that more in-depth mixed approaches such as qualitative and
longitudinal studies should investigate other factors such as
personality differences across generational cohorts and the
influences of the different career stages on the experience of
work.
Conclusion
This study showed that a positive moderate relationship
exists between work engagement and meaningful work and
doi:10.4102/sajhrm.v13i1.681
 Page 10 of 11
that efforts to increase engagement levels will have a positive
effect on workers’ experiences of meaningfulness in their
work. Beliefs that older people are less engaged and find
work less meaningful are proven incorrect. In both instances,
Baby Boomers outperformed their younger counterparts. The
results therefore suggest that organisations should take age
into serious consideration when designing their engagement
strategies. With people retiring later, organisations need
to keep their older workers engaged, but also need to
determine which elements the other generational cohorts
find meaningful in their work to become more engaged and
customise their strategies accordingly.
Acknowledgements
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal
relationship(s) that may have inappropriately influenced
them in writing this article.
Authors’ contributions
C.H. (University of Johannesburg) was the supervisor
of the research study. She was responsible for making
conceptual contributions to the study and contributed
to updating and revising the literature review, executing
the data analysis and writing the article. J.B. (University
of Johannesburg) was responsible for conceptual
contributions to the study; she was the main contributor
to the literature review and was responsible for data
collection and data capturing.
References
Anitha, J. (2014). Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on
employee performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 63(3), 308–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2013-0008
AON Hewitt. (2013). 2013 trends in global employee engagement. Retrieved
February 14, 2014, from http://www.aon.com/forms/2013/AH_trends-
employee-engagement.html
Australian Public Service Commission. (2012). Employee engagement. Retrieved
February 16, 2014, from http://www.apsc.gov.au/about-the-apsc/parliamentary/
state-of-the-service/2011-12-sosr/04-employee-engagement
Ayers, D.F., Miller-Dyce, C., & Carlone, D. (2008). Security, dignity, caring
relationships and meaningful work: Needs motivating participation in a job-
training program. Community College Review, 35(4), 257–276. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/1059601108314581
Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement,
Career Development International, 13, 209–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
13620430810870476
Bakker, A.B., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2008). Positive organizational behaviour: Engaged
employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 29,
147–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.515
Bakker, A.B., Xanthopoulou, D., Dollard, M.F., Demerouti, E., Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W.
et al. (2007). When do job demands particularly predict burnout? The moderating
role of job resources. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(8), 766–786. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940710837714
Bates, S. (2004). Getting engaged. HR Magazine, 49(2), 44–51. Retrieved from http://
www.shrm.org/publications/hrmagazine/editorialcontent/pages/0204covstory.
aspx
BlessingWhite. (2012). The engagement equation. Retrieved February 04, 2014, from
http://blessingwhite.com/elibrary/eEngagement_Equation_FactSheet.pdf
Boone-James, J., Mckechnie, S., & Swanberg, J. (2011). Predicting employee
engagement in an age-diverse retail workforce. Journal of Organizational
Behaviour, 32, 173–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.681
Bowie, N.E. (1998). A Kantian theory of meaningful work. Journal of Business Ethics,
17(9–10), 1083–1092. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1006023500585
Chalofsky, N., & Krishna, V. (2009). Meaningfulness, commitment, and engagement:
The intersection of a deeper level of intrinsic motivation. Advances in Developing
Human Resources, 11(2), 189–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1523422309333147
http://www.sajhrm.org.za
Original Research
Coetzee, M., & De Villiers, M. (2010). Sources of job stress, work engagement and
career orientations of employees in a South African financial institution. South
African Business Review, 14(1), 27–58.
Crabtree, S. (2005). Engagement keeps the doctor away. Gallup Management Journal.
Retrieved February 15, 2014, from http://nsuweb.nova.edu/ie/ice/forms/
engagement_keeps_the_doctor_away.pdf
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. Retrieved March 20, 2014,
from http://pages.ucsd.edu/~nchristenfeld/Happiness_Readings_files/Class%20
7%20-%20Csikszentmihalyi%201975.pdf
D’Amato, A., & Herzfeldt, R. (2008). Learning orientation, organizational
commitment and talent retention across generations: A study of European
managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 929–953. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/02683940810904402
Deal, J.J., Altman, D.G., & Rogelberg, S.G. (2010). Millennials at work: What we know
and what we need to do (if anything). Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2),
191–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9177-2
De Bruin, G.P., Hill, C., Henn, C.M., & Muller, K. (2013). Dimensionality of the UWES-
17. An item response modeling analysis. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 39(2),
8 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v39i2.1148
Dik, B.J., & Duffy, R.D. (2007). Calling and vocation at work: Definitions and prospects
for research and practice. The Counselling Psychologist, 37(3), 424–450. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000008316430
Drake, T.J. (2012). Assessing employee engagement: A comparison of the job
engagement scale and the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Retrieved June 16,
2014, from http://digitool.library.colostate.edu/exlibris/dtl/d3_1/apache_media/
L2V4bGlicmlzL2R0bC9kM18xL2FwYWNoZV9tZWRpYS8xNzA3MzM=.pdf
Drewery, K., Riley, A., & Staff, H. (2008). Gen up – How the four generations work. Retrieved
February 15, 2014, from http://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/25DA52DE-F120-
4579-AFE3-564C8801425D/0/genuphowfourgenerationswork.pdf
Dullien, T. (2012). Improving employee engagement: Make work meaningful. Indian
Gaming, 31(3), 34–37.
Dwyer, R.J. (2009). Prepare for the impact of the multi-generational workforce!
Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 3(2), 101–110. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506160910960513
Emergent Growth. (2013). Sub-Saharan Africa: Employee engagement
survey. Retrieved February 10, 2014, from http://personal.crocodoc.com/
JpxHxFj?embedded=true
Erickson, T. (2011). Meaning is the new money. Retrieved March 20, 2014, from
http://blogs.hbr.org/2011/03/challenging-our-deeply-held-as/
Evenson, L. (2014). New frontiers in employee engagement. Retrieved February 12,
2014, from http://www.bersin.com/News/Details.aspx?id=15208
Fairlie, P. (2011). Meaningful work, employee engagement, and other key
employee outcomes: Implications for human resource development.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(4), 508–525. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/1523422311431679
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: SAGE Publications.
Frankl, V.E. (1984). Man’s search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy. Boston,
MA: Beacon Press.
Gallup Consulting. (2008). Employee engagement: What is your engagement ratio?
Retrieved March 18, 2014, from http://www.gallup.com/strategicconsulting/
121535/Employee-Engagement-Overview-Brochure.aspx
Glass, A. (2007). Understanding generational differences for competitive success.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(2), 98–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
00197850710732424
Hallberg, U., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2006). ‘Same same’ but different? Can work engagement
be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment? European
Psychologist, 11, 119–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.11.2.119
Havenga, W., Stanz, K., Visagie, J., & Wait, K. (2011). Evaluating the difference in
employee engagement before and after business and cultural transformation
interventions. African Journal of Business Management, 5(22), 8804–8820. http://
dx.doi.org/10.5897/AJBM10.1436
Hirschi, A. (2012). Callings and work engagement: Moderated mediation model
of work meaningfulness, occupational identity, and occupational self-efficacy.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(3), 479–485. PMID: 22774870, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/a0028949
Holbeche, L., & Springett, N. (2003). In search of the meaning of work. Exeter: Roffey
Park Institute.
Hornbostel, B., Kumar, R., & Smith, R. (2011). My generation. Retrieved February 10, 2014,
from http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/thinkweek/fourgenerations-
hornbostel_kumar_smith-july2011.pdf
Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and
disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/256287
Kapoor, C., & Solomon, N. (2011). Understanding and managing generational
differences in the workplace. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 3(4),
308–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17554211111162435
Karami, H. (2012). An introduction to differential item functioning. The International
Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 11(2), 59–75. Retrieved
from http://www.academia.edu/1030760/An_introduction_to_Differential_Item_
Functioning
Kenexa. (2012). The many contexts of employee engagement. Retrieved February
10, 2014, from http://www.kenexa.com/Portals/0/Downloads/KHPI Papers/The
Many Contexts of Employee Engagement-2012 WT Report_CS6.pdf
doi:10.4102/sajhrm.v13i1.681
 Page 11 of 11
King, L.A., & Napa, C.K. (1998). What makes a life good? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 75(1), 156–165. PMID: 9686456, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.156
Koloc, N. (2013). What job candidates really want: Meaningful work. Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved March 16, 2014, from http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/04/what-job-
candidates-really-wan/
Kompier, M. (2005). Dealing with workplace stress. In C.L. Cooper (Ed.), Handbook of
stress medicine and health (pp. 349–374). London: CRC Press.
Kowske, B.J., Rasch, R., & Wiley, J. (2010). Millennials’ (lack of) attitude problem: An
empirical examination of generational effects on work attitudes. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 25(2), 265–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9171-8
Kular, S., Gatenby, M., Rees, C., Soane, E., & Truss, K. (2008). Employee engagement:
A literature review. Retrieved March 16, 2014, from http://eprints.kingston.
ac.uk/4192/1/19wempen.pdf
Kunreuther, F. (2003). The changing of the guard: What generational differences tell
us about social-change organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
32(3), 450–457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764003254975
Langelaan, S., Bakker, A.B., Van Doornen, L.J., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2006). Burnout
and work engagement: Do individual differences make a difference? Personality
and Individual Differences, 40(3), 521–532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2005.07.009
Lips-Wiersema, M., & Wright, S. (2012). Measuring the meaning of meaningful work:
Development and validation of the Comprehensive Meaningful Work Scale
(CMWS). Group & Organization Management, 37(5), 655–685. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/1059601112461578
Macey, W.H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M.P. (1997). Early predictors of job burnout and engagement.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 498–512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.93.3.498
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B., & Leiter, M.P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 397–422.
Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50,
370–396.
Maurer, R. (2013). Employee engagement high in Sub-Saharan Africa. Retrieved
February 13, 2014, from http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/global/articles/
pages/employee-engagement-high-africa.aspx
May, D.R., Gilson, R.L., & Harter, L.M. (2004). The psychological conditions of
meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit
at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11–37.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317904322915892
Meriac, J.P., Woehr, D.J., & Banister, C. (2010). Generational differences in work ethic: An
examination of measurement equivalence across three cohorts. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 25(2), 315–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9164-7
Miller, B., & Nyce, S. (2014). Which workers are delaying retirement and why? Retrieved
October 12, 2014, from http://www.towerswatson.com/en/Insights/Newsletters/
Americas/Insider/2014/which-employees-are-delaying-retirement-and-why
Miller, C.S. (2008). Meaningful work over the life course. Fielding Graduate University.
Retrieved March 15, 2014, from http://0-search.proquest.com.ujlink.uj.ac.za/
pqdtglobal/docview/304823090/6D5CD4C186E44944PQ/1?accountid=13425
Mlodzik, K.J., & De Meuse, K. (2010). A scholarly investigation of generational workforce
differences: Debunking the myths. Retrieved March 20, 2014, from http://
www.ihrim.org/Pubonline/Wire/Sept12/ScholarlyInvestigationofGenerational
WorkforceDifferences.pdf
Morrow, P.C. (1983). Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work
commitment. Academy of Management Review, 8(3), 486–500. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5465/AMR.1983.4284606
Olivier, A.L., & Rothmann, S. (2007). Antecedents of work engagement in a
multinational oil company. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 33(3), 49–56.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v33i3.396
Overell, S. (2008). Inwardness: The rise of meaningful work. London: The Work
Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.theworkfoundation.com/assets/docs/
publications/32_inwardness_final.pdf
Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.
Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2009). Tapping into talent. Retrieved February 10, 2014, from http://
employeeengagement.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Tappingintotalent
FINAL.pdf
Pech, R., & Slade, B. (2006). Employee disengagement: Is there evidence of a
growing problem? Handbook of Business Strategy, 7(1), 21–25. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/10775730610618585
http://www.sajhrm.org.za
Original Research
Pitt-Catsouphes, M., & Matz-Costa, C. (2009). Engaging the 21st century multi-
generational workforce. Retrieved February 10, 2014, from http://www.bc.edu/
research/agingandwork/projects/generations.html
Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004). The drivers of employee engagement.
Retrieved February 10, 2014, from http://www.employment-studies.co.uk/pubs/
summary.php?id=408
Roodt, G. (2004). Concept redundancy and contamination in employee commitment
research: Current problems and future directions. SA Journal of Industrial
Psychology, 30(1), 82–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v30i1.135
Rothmann, S. (2003). Burnout and engagement: A South African perspective. SA
Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(4), 16–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.
v29i4.121
Rothmann, S., Jorgensen, L.I., & Hill, C. (2011). Coping and work engagement in
selected South African organisations. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(1),
107–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v37i1.962
Rothmann, S., & Rothmann, S. (2010). Factors associated with employee engagement
in South Africa. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), 27–38. http://dx.doi.
org/10.4102/sajip.v36i2.925
Sanlam. (2013). When one day becomes day one. Retrieved March 20, 2014, from
http://www.sanlambenchmark.co.za/webadmin/include/content/2013_
PENSIONER 8 May FINAL.pdf
Schaufeli, W.B. (2013). What is engagement? In C. Truss, K. Alfes, R. Delbridge, A.
Shantz, & E. Soane (Eds.), Employee engagement in theory and practice (pp. 15–35).
London: Routledge.
Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. (2003). UWES Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Retrieved
March 19, 2014, from http://www.beanmanaged.com/doc/pdf/arnoldbakker/
articles/articles_arnold_bakker_87.pdf
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzáles-Romá, V., & Bakker, A.B. (2002). The
measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor
analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.
Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout, and
work engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-
being? Applied Psychology, 57(2), 173–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-
0597.2007.00285.x
Schewe, C.D., & Noble, S.M. (2000). Market segmentation by cohorts: The value and
validity of cohorts in America and abroad. Journal of Marketing Management,
16(1–3), 129–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1362/026725700785100479
Scott, D., & McMullen, T. (2010). The impact of rewards programs on employee
engagement. Retrieved March 18, 2014, from http://www.worldatwork.org/
waw/adimLink?id=39032
Seligman, E.P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.
American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.5
Sonnentag, S. (2011). Research on work engagement is well and alive. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 29–38. http://dx.doi.org/1
0.1080/1359432X.2010.510639
Steinmetz, H. (2013). Analyzing observed composite differences across groups: Is
partial measurement invariance enough? Methodology: European Journal of
Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 9(1), 1–12. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000049
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics. (5th edn.). Boston,
MA: Pearson.
Thomas, K.W., & Velthouse, B.A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment :
An ‘interpretive’ model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management
Review, 15(4), 666–681. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1990.4310926
Tymon, W.G. (1988). An empirical investigation of a cognitive model of empowerment.
Temple University. Retrieved March 26, 2014, from http://0-search.proquest.com.
ujlink.uj.ac.za/pqdtglobal/docview/303724939/fulltextPDF/
Wells-Lepley, M. (2013). Meaningful work: The key to employee engagement.
Business Lexicon: Weekly Wire. Retrieved March 15, 2014, from http://bizlex.
com/2013/03/meaningful-work-the-key-to-employee-engagement/
White, M. (2011). Rethinking generation gaps in the workplace: Focus on
shared values. Retrieved February 10, 2014, from https://www.kenan-
flagler.unc.edu/executive-development/custom-programs/~/media/
C8FC09AEF03743BE91112418FEE286D0.ashx
Wong, M., Gardiner, E., Lang, W., & Coulon, L. (2008). Generational differences in
personality and motivation: Do they exist and what are the implications for the
workplace? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 878–890. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/02683940810904376
Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Jobs, careers, and
callings: People’s relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality, 31,
21–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2162
doi:10.4102/sajhrm.v13i1.681